Wylie, R v

Where an accused creates a false impression about previous trouble with the authorities, evidence of a previous conviction may be admitted under Criminal Justice Act 2003 to correct it. The statutory limitation is that the evidence must go no further than is needed for that purpose.

However, an interview connected with the conviction may be admissible for separate and direct relevance to disputed knowledge and conduct. Its admission will not render a conviction unsafe where it was relevant to the live issues and the jury was not materially misdirected. A sentence for persistent, knowing participation in a substantial dishonest copyright enterprise will not be interfered with unless wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

R v Wylie concerned convictions for distributing infringing copies of copyright music and videos through digital entertainment systems supplied to licensed venues. The appellant maintained that he believed the companies were properly licensed and had relied on his father.

During his evidence, the appellant stated that he had not previously been in trouble. He had, however, previously been convicted under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The trial judge admitted evidence concerning that conviction and an interview with an Official Receiver.

The appellant appealed against conviction on the basis that the evidence was wrongly admitted and mishandled in the summing-up. He also sought leave to appeal against a total sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appellant’s assertion that he had never previously been in trouble created a false impression. The judge was entitled to admit the previous conviction under section 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to correct that impression. Excluding it under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 would have risked misleading the jury.

2. Section 105(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 confines evidence admitted to correct a false impression to what is necessary for that purpose. But the Official Receiver’s interview was not material only for correction of the impression. It was also directly relevant to the appellant’s evidence, the history and operation of the companies, directors’ duties, and his knowledge of unlawful trading without licences. The judge could properly admit it on that wider basis.

3. The summing-up dealt extensively with the interview, but that reflected its relevance to the central issue of the appellant’s knowledge. Although the judge gave no express warning that the previous conviction could not itself prove guilt, the conviction had receded into the background. The absence of that warning did not make the conviction unsafe.

4. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The appellant knowingly participated in a dishonest enterprise on a significant scale and continued after the police raid. Given the persistence of the offending and estimated losses of £100,000 to £400,000, the total sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

5. The court also ordered the private prosecutor’s costs from central funds, to be taxed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v Wylie, [2010] EWCA Crim 3110, the court dismissed the conviction appeal and refused leave to appeal against the total sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: On 17 March 2010, the appellant was convicted of two counts of distributing infringing copies of copyright works. On 18 July 2010, he received a total sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.